second was in the National Constitution. * * * * * On its adoption, the Constitution was transmitted to Congress with a letter from Washington, where, among other things, it is said that “in all our deliberations we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, _the consolidation of our Union_, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our National existence.”[49] Enough that this letter is signed “George Washington”; but it was not merely the expression of his individual sentiments. It was unanimously adopted by the Convention, on the report of the committee that made the final draught of the Constitution itself, so that it must be considered as belonging to this great transaction. By its light the Constitution must be read. If anybody is disposed to set up the denationalizing pretensions of States under the National Constitution, let him bear in mind this explicit declaration, that, throughout all the deliberations of the Convention, the one object kept steadily in view was _the consolidation of our Union_. Such is the unanimous testimony of the Convention, authenticated by George Washington. The Constitution was discussed next in the States. It was vindicated as creating a National Government, and it was opposed also on this very ground. Thus from opposite quarters comes the concurring testimony. In Connecticut, Mr. Johnson, who had been chairman of the committee that reported the final draught, said, in reply to inquiries of his constituents, that the Convention had “gone upon entirely new ground: they have formed _one new Nation_ out of the individual States.”[50] George Mason, of Virginia, proclaimed at home that “the Confederation of the States was entirely changed into _one consolidated government_,”--that it was “a _National_ government, and no longer a Confederation.”[51] Patrick Henry, in his vigorous opposition, testified to the completeness with which the work had been accomplished. Inquiring by what authority the Convention assumed to make such a government, he exclaimed: “That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear.… Give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, _We, the people_?… Who authorized them to speak the language of _We, the people_, instead of _We, the States_?… If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National government of the people of all the States.”[52] Then again the same fervid orator declared, with infinite point, “The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, _We, the people_, instead of _the States_.”[53] Patrick Henry was right. The question did turn on that grand expression, _We, the people_, in the very frontispiece of the Constitution, filling the whole with life-giving power; and so long as it stands there, the denationalizing pretensions of States must shrink into littleness. Originally “one